Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Thupakula Sudhakar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 January, 2023

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                WRIT PETITION No. 25479 of 2020

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.

2. In a nut shell, the case of the petitioner is that he and his

family members were residing at K.Basavapuram village, B.Mattal

Mandal, Kadapa District. The Government had acquired their

house and agricultural lands in the year 1984-1985 for the purpose

of construction of Telugu Ganga Project and awards were passed in

favour of the father of the petitioner on 06.11.1984. With a view to

provide employment to the displaced persons or their dependents

under the major and medium irrigation projects, the Government

had promulgated G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing)

Department, dated 15.04.1986, and issued orders. As per the

scheme envisaged in the said G.O., the brother of the petitioner,

namely, Thupakula Venkata Subbaiah, applied for consideration of

his case for appointment against the vacancies reserved for the

displaced persons. After due enquiry, the District Selection

Committee prepared an integrated seniority list of 210 eligible

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

displaced persons for employment under the Telugu Ganga Project.

The Government vide memo dated 31.10.2019 approved the said

list in which the brother of the petitioner was figured at Sl.No.30.

While so, the 3rd respondent published the list of 41 candidates

including the name of the petitioner's brother at Sl.No.30 on

10.01.2020 stating that the candidate is working as an Attender in

Guru Raghavendra Project, Emmiganuru.

i) Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application in the

place of his brother for consideration of his case for appointment.

After following due procedure enumerated in the relevant

Government Orders, the 1st respondent vide Memo dated

28.11.2019 included the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.10 in the

list of displaced persons. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa,

submitted a report to the 4th respondent on 31.07.2020 stating that

the petitioner is eligible for appointment under displaced persons

quota. However, the 3rd respondent vide Memo dated 07.10.2020

rejected the application of the petitioner in compliance of the

orders of the District Collector and the District Selection

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

Committee, without assigning any valid reasons. Assailing the

same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents

stating that the case of the petitioner's brother was not considered

for appointment and his case was rejected based on the verification

report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, as the

petitioner's brother was working as an Attender in Sri guru

Raghavendra Project. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner filed

an affidavit requesting to include the name of the petitioner in the

list. After due enquiry, the name of the petitioner was approved by

the District Selection Committee on 08.08.2019 and the

Government also accorded permission to include the name of the

petitioner in the existing seniority list vide Memo dated

28.11.2019.

i) In the meanwhile, basing on an oral complaint was made by

some third-parties that there are Government employees in the

family of the petitioner, and enquiry was ordered and the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Kadapa furnished a report dated 31.07.2020

stating that the petitioner's father was working as Office

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

Subordinate in the office of the Superintending engineer, NTR

TGP Circle, Kadapa. Pursuant thereto, an Office Note was

circulated to the District Selection Committee for approval of

ineligibility of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the

seniority list of displaced persons and the same was approved.

4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the

averments made in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that

without considering the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer

dated 31.07.2020 and without there being any competence, the 3 rd

respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2020

holding the petitioner ineligible for employment under the

displaced persons quota. It is also stated that the petitioner's father

was working as Mazdoor on part time basis on a consolidated pay

for some time and later, his services were regularised on

05.11.2019 and he retired from service upon attaining the age of

superannuation in the year 2018 and now he is drawing pension.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that after approval of the

original list of candidates by the Government, the other

respondents are incompetent to delete the name of the persons from

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

the said approved list of the Government unilaterally and by

making so called re-enquiry without being ordered by the

Government. Further, neither a notice was issued nor an

opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing

the impugned proceedings. It is also the contention of the petitioner

that merely because his father is receiving pension, the respondents

cannot deny the employment to be provided under G.O.Ms.No.98

dated 15.04.1986 for which the petitioner is entitled in all respects.

In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of this

Court in Dasari Lakshminarayana Vs. The Government of

Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.4390 of 2010 and batch dated

29.02.2012) and in Rachagolla Vijaya Pratap Gandhi Vs. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.507 of 2010 dated

22.06.2011).

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-III has

reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the respondents.

7. As can be seen from the respective pleadings of the parties,

it is obvious that the petitioner is a displaced person as the

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

possession of the land and house of his family was acquired by the

respondent authorities. Admittedly, thereafter the petitioner

submitted his application for appointment under the quota

earmarked for displaced persons and the 1st respondent after

following the due procedure therefor included the name of the

petitioner in the list of displaced persons for providing employment

vide Memo dated 28.11.2019. However, the 3 rd respondent

rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment vide Memo

dated 07.10.2020, in compliance of the orders of the District

Collector, without assigning any valid reasons. The petitioner was

thus denied employment though his case had been considered and

approved by the 1st respondent.

8. In the report dated 31.07.2020 submitted by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Kadapa, to the 3rd respondent, it is categorically

stated that the father of the petitioner was retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation; that the brother of the

petitioner is working on daily wage basis in the office of the S.E.,

Telugu Ganga Project, Mamillapalli, C.K.Dinne mandal, as

Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) but not working as Panchayt

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

Secretary and not a permanent employee, that the mother of the

petitioner is a housewife; that the complainants, who levelled

allegations against the petitioner, have withdrawn their complaints

on 06.12.2019; that nobody in the petitioner's family has objected

regarding the claim of employment by the petitioner under the

displaced persons quota; and that the petitioner is eligible for

getting employment.

9. Further, the respondents did not choose to file any rejoinder

denying the averments made by the petitioner in his reply affidavit.

10. In view of the above, two aspects that fall for adjudication in

this writ petition are, whether the 3rd respondent is competent to

make an enquiry after the Government approved the list of eligible

candidates and when the Government did not order any re-enquiry

into the matter, and whether a retired Government employee

drawing pension can be treated as an earning member of the

family. Both the aspects were dealt with by this Court in the

judgments on which the petitioner relied.

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

i) In Dasari Lakshminarayana case (1 supra), in paras 4 and 9

of his judgment the learned Single Judge of this Court held as

under:

"4. In the counter it is not disclosed as to who ordered re-enquiry. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, which approved the list on 31.10.2019, did not order any re-enquiry and did not call for any report. It is not disclosed as to what was the authority for the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet and Special Deputy Collector, TGP, Unit-I, Kadapa, to make such enquiry after the Government approved the list of eligible candidates and when the Government did not order any re-enquiry into the matter. Even after the so called re-enquiry and preparation of list of ineligible candidates, no effort was made to send the list of ineligible candidates to the Government and for deletion of names of the ineligible candidates from the list of original eligible candidates approved by the government. In the absence of any authorization, it is evident that the district machinery at Kadapa has acted in a manner over and above the State Government in publishing list of ineligible candidates contrary to the list of eligible candidates approved by the State Government. In that view of the matter, grievances of the petitioners in these writ petitions are real.

9. On individual scrutiny of the grounds urged by the respondents for treating the petitioners as ineligible candidates, I have no hesitation in my mind that all the grounds put forward by the respondents for deleting the names of the petitioners from the list of eligible candidates for appointment as displaced persons, are untenable. Further, this Court is of the opinion that after approval of the original list of eligible candidates by the Government, the other respondents are incompetent to delete names of the persons from the

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

said list unilaterally and by making so called re-enquiry without being ordered by the Government. The act of deleting the names of the petitioners from the list of eligible candidates by respondents 3 to 5 is ultra vires and illegal."

ii) In Rachagolla Vijaya Pratap Gandhi case (2 supra), the

learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:

" It is therefore discernible from the above that pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. It is not an ex gratia payment but a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in the lurch. The term „pension‟ has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus, the pension payable to an employee is earned by rendering long and sufficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered.

In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that a retired Government Head master drawing pension is an earning member of the family. Therefore, the ground cited by the third respondent on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, for denying employment to the petitioner under the quota earmarked for displaced employees is unsustainable in law."

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the judgments relied on by the petitioner

referred to supra are applicable to the facts of the case on hand and

the petitioner is entitled for employment under the displaced

persons quota.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

Memo dated 07.10.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set

aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case

of the petitioner for suitable employment under the quota

earmarked for displaced persons in consonance with the list of

displaced persons approved by the Government under Memo dated

28.11.2019 forthwith and pass appropriate orders thereon. No

orders as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 20th January, 2023 cbs

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020